L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Allison S. (In re Travis C.)
13 Cal. App. 5th 1219
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Mother (Allison S.) has schizoaffective disorder with auditory/visual hallucinations, delusions, suicidal ideation, and intermittently refused prescribed psychotropic medication. She also used marijuana regularly and had past stimulant use.
- While unmedicated Mother had psychotic episodes that frightened the children; she threatened suicide while the children were present and continued to drive with them during symptomatic periods.
- Maternal grandparents regularly stepped in as primary caregivers during Mother's episodes (removed children during crises, took keys, prepared meals), but never obtained legal guardianship.
- DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 300(b)(1) petition alleging risk from Mother’s mental illness and substance use; the juvenile court sustained the petition after amending the factual paragraphs to remove father-related allegations and strike the substance-abuse paragraph.
- The court declared the children dependents and placed them with parents on condition they reside with the maternal grandparents. DCFS later filed a § 387 petition; after subsequent proceedings the children were placed with Father. DCFS moved to dismiss Mother’s appeal as moot; the appellate court denied that motion and reviewed the § 300 adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under § 300(b)(1) | Mother: insufficient evidence; risk of serious physical harm is speculative and cannot be presumed from mental illness alone | DCFS: Mother’s untreated, severe mental illness and inconsistent treatment created a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the children | Court: Affirmed—substantial evidence supports jurisdiction based on Mother’s intermittent refusal of treatment, prior crises (suicidal threats, driving while symptomatic), and reliance on grandparents as mitigation |
| Whether the court’s amendment of petition facts negated the statutory risk element | Mother: court’s deletions show it found no substantial risk of serious physical harm | DCFS: the jurisdictional allegation tracked statutory language and remained intact | Court: Amendment did not eliminate the statutory allegation; court sustained the petition as framed and jurisdiction stands |
| Whether appeal is moot because of subsequent § 387 proceedings | DCFS: subsequent § 387 adjudication provided independent jurisdiction so Mother’s appeal is moot | Mother: § 387 cannot confer jurisdiction independent of an originally valid § 300 adjudication | Court: Denied DCFS motion to dismiss; § 387 presupposes existing jurisdiction, so appellate review of § 300 was required |
| DCFS cross-appeal on trial-court amendments to petition | DCFS: amendments were erroneous | Mother: N/A | Court: Cross-appeal dismissed as moot after affirming § 300 adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (appellate court need only find one statutory basis for jurisdiction)
- In re A.B., 225 Cal.App.4th 1358 (discusses mootness where later petition establishes jurisdiction)
- Kimberly R. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 1067 (mental illness alone does not automatically establish risk)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (elements of § 300(b) jurisdiction)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (standard of substantial-evidence review in dependency cases)
- In re David M., 134 Cal.App.4th 822 (distinguishes speculative risk from substantial risk)